S.C. holds up Georgia-South Carolina bridge progress

COLUMBIA — A key permit for the replacement of the Back River Bridge is expected to move forward this week, but the $16.5 million construction project still faces an uncertain time frame.

Construction bidding was expected to start in June. On Friday a spokesperson for the Georgia Department of Transportation said the project was not ready to enter the bidding process and didn’t provide a new estimated date. The Georgia agency is pursuing federal approval of the new bridge in partnership with the South Carolina Department of Transportation.

“We are in the final stages of our review,” said Travis Hughes, deputy division chief of the Charleston District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, during a conference call with other corps officials and a reporter.

“I believe it’s just South Carolina at this point,” he said, referring to permitting materials he had yet to receive.

The two states are working together on the reconstruction of the nearly 60-year-old structure linking Savannah and Jasper County. on U.S. 17. Georgia will pay 90 percent, and South Carolina will pay 10 percent. Federal dollars for the project will total an estimated $9 million.

Regarding the Palmetto State’s share of the regulatory process, Hughes said it wasn’t clear who would be sending the corps the permit material for them to review and approve — the S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control or a separate South Carolina agency created in 2007, the Savannah River Maritime Commission. The two agencies have been locked in a legal battle over which has authority to issue permits on the Savannah River, a controversy that arose in November when DHEC gave its blessing to Georgia’s $653 million harbor deepening.

“DHEC conferred with us on it, and we made the determination that it does not affect ocean going navigation, so we are not responsible,” he said. “Our charge is to deal with things in the river that have a particular impact on navigation, sledge disposal, dredging. And the bridge did not fall into that.”

Dan Burger, of DHEC’s Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management, said the agency expects to send in its coastal zone consistency determination to the corps next week. Burger said a related piece to be sent to the corps, the 401 Water Quality Certification, is being reviewed by DHEC’s Bureau of Water.

Georgia submitted its 401 Water Quality Certification to the corps at the end of March.

This spring the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Georgia Environmental Protection Division and the S.C. Department of Natural Resources recommended the project lock in tidal marsh mitigation credits, intended to offset environmental damage from the work, at the beginning of the job.

On Friday Catherine Samay, a Georgia EPD official, said the Salt Creek Saltmarsh Mitigation Bank in Chatham County had been approved, and those pursuing the new bridge intended to purchase credits from it.

The construction will require officials to place fill material in 1.65 acres of tidal wetlands.

The new bridge is expected to take two to two-and-a-half years to build, but the 19,000 daily motorists who use the current bridge may keep driving on it until it is taken down at the completion of the new one.

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has asked for six protective measures to make way for the federally-protected manatees from May 15 — Oct. 15. Among the recommendations was for workers to cut off all machinery if the 1,000-pound mammal floated within 50 feet. The wildlife agency also called for the use of siltation barriers that would not ensnare the seal-shaped “sea cows.”

As for whether those measures would be incorporated, Elizabeth Williams, project manager in the corps’ Charleston District, said the federal agency had yet to grant a final permit to build the bridge, so she could not commit to the manatee safeguards.

“But under normal circumstances, yes, we usually incorporate that,” she said. “And I don’t see any reason we wouldn’t.”

Comments are welcome, so long as they are civil. A Facebook account is required. Abuse may result in the commenter being permanently blocked. Personal attacks are strictly prohibited. We reserve the right to remove any comments at any time.